Thursday, December 7

Nigel Farage still support to Brexit and warns of widespread anger



Farage Nigel Farage has said that if Britain’s exit from the European Union is derailed there will be political anger the like of which we have never seen in this country in my lifetime.

Mr Farage also questioned the independence of the judiciary, in response to this week’s High Court ruling that said parliament must vote on when to deploy Article 50, and the claims by Jeremy Corbyn that Labour could demand continued membership of the single market.

If that’s where we end up we’ve got half a Brexit,” he told the Andrew Marr Show. Asked about whether the judges who made the decision had not acted independently, as he has previously he said. Look at Lord Justice Thomas, the founding member of a body seeking to integrate law at an EU level. Surely will that background he should have absented himself from this particular case.

If the people of this country think they’re going to be cheated, we will see political anger, the like of which we have never seen in this country in our lifetime.

In lively exchanges with Gina Miller, the businesswoman who brought the case to the High Court, Mr Farage told her that by handing MPs the power to block of water down Brexit, You will have stirred up the biggest political upset you have ever seen.

Earlier Ms Miller said “everyone in the country” should be her “biggest fan” following the controversial court case.

She said the High Court ruling has stopped the Government acting like a “tin-pot dictatorship” over plans to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament.

The investment fund manager and philanthropist said the Press had “behaved disgracefully” following the court judgment.

She told BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show: “This is about creating legal certainty and actually, everyone in the country should be my biggest fan because I’ve used my own money and a few of us we have used our own money to create legal certainty for Mrs May to move ahead.”

She said it was “misdirection” to claim that the decision was unpicking parliamentary sovereignty.

“The case is that she cannot use something called the Royal Prerogative to do it because we do not live in a tin-pot dictatorship,” she said.